12 sats \ 5 replies \ @ThrillerX_ OP 4 Oct 2021 \ parent \ on: What does everyone think about different topics for SN? Or should we just stay Bitcoin & Lightning? bitcoin
Great feedback. I think eventually will end up seeing people from all sorts on here. How do we keep it Bitcoin and Lightning only? No upvotes with sats is the only way now. Any other way to deter other topics?
This is a treacherous road. SN is almost surely going to need moderation at some point, if it doesn't already. At the very least, this will require a "flag" option. I really like the upvoate/boost/tip = real money but I don't really know how downvotes should work, if at all.
Should downvotes go to a moderator or the site directly? It certainly shouldn't go to the poster because that creates a moral hazard.
I think flagging content and downvotes are probably a near necessity at some point. Flagging is "easy" in that this will alert @k00b or some other moderator (that is, as of yet, not a filled position?) to remove the post. I think downvotes are probably also a necessity but I don't have a clear picture on how it should work.
Somewhat related, I think also posting some type of guidelines on content and how people should act on the site should be created now/soon. I created an issue but for an example, you can see one that HN has.
Also, just spit balling, but Stack Overflow was just a Q&A site for computer programming and then branched out into other areas (computer science, biology, politics, etc.) under the "stackexchange" sites. If SN ever gets popular enough, this might be a good template (politics.stacker.news, computerscience.stacker.news, etc.). SO also has "Area 51" where people can upvote which topics to create a community for, and this might also be a template to figure out which topics are good to put in their own little community.
reply
The way I'm thinking about this so far is that I want to minimize if not eliminate the need for centralized moderation.
- When we have subs they can have configurable Sybil Resistance, e.g. 1000+ sats to post/comment/upvote and maybe even 100000+ sats to join.
- Staking even larger amounts to comment/post that are only returned if the post exceeds some number of upvotes
- Downvotes but where they are at least as expensive as upvotes and probably more expensive
Maybe this isn't enough but we are in new territory so the old rules don't necessarily apply. I'd prefer "market" solutions rather than "government" ones where possible.
reply
All these suggestions sound interesting if they can be implemented.
- Configurable post/comment/upvote and joining fees are certainly something to try. There might even be a facility to automatically set the post/comment/upvote cost based on activity. Maybe something like expected return of a "good" post/comment is the cost?
- I like the staking idea
- Having downvotes be more costly than upvotes seems like a good idea (HN doesn't even let you downvote until you reach a certain karma threshold) but I don't have any clear idea of what the ratio should be
I certainly don't have any big insight but I also would urge you not to shy away from "government" solutions if they work. Remember that the USA isn't a pure democracy, it's a representative democracy. Also know that you're basically the sites tiny dictator and there's danger in not acknowledging that fact. Everything is FOSS, so there's always the possibility of forking (especially if content is under a libre/free license), so it's much more "free" than something like HN, say.
Maybe this is heresy around here but the free hand of the market isn't some magical force that knows all. We're dealing with NP-complete problems and market solutions are traversing an energy landscape with local information, just like all natural/evolutionary algorithms. Put another way, setting up algorithms in the guise of market solutions is a form of government in it's own right.
There's no reason not to experiment with whatever you want, it's your site after all, but I would urge you to proceed with caution. This is a social site with humans interacting. Knowing a priori what "market" solution will work best for this community is probably pretty difficult. My opinion is that having moderators in place provides a known solution. The big novelty here, in terms of moderation, is that moderators can get paid which could help with burnout and actually incentivize folks to occupy that position.
I've mentioned this before but I'll reference Clay Shirky's "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy" again. In particular, there are three items that I think are relevant from the "Three Things to Accept" section:
- You cannot completely separate the social from the technical
- There will be a core group of users that care about the integrity and success of the group and probably matter more than the uninvested user
- The core group has rights more than the average user
reply
I would like to add a counter to that if I may just to hear your explanation?
Why build SN at all? If were going to still require a centralized group of moderators making judgment calls based on an agreed set criteria that could be misinterpreted by random human error?
It would be basically Reddit with a tipping feature. I believe SN can be greater than just that. Not trying to sell the “government” idea short just not sure how to avoid it from becoming /bitcoin Which if I may add has become a terrible place to find news or insights on Bitcoin and Lightning over the years.
Curation incentives by individual Stakers makes more sense based on what you have outlined probably something that hasn’t been brought up yet that could satisfy both “government” and “market.”
Great discussion…btw.
reply
It would be basically Reddit with a tipping feature.
This is precisely the value proposition of SN, in my opinion. Discussion forums, Q&A sites, social networking sites, etc. have been around since the inception of the Web. It's only recently that microtransactions have become feasible.
I think the discussion maybe gets a little muddled because we're talking about creating a social networking site that talks about Bitcoin but also about a social networking site that uses real money. I'm all for a general purpose social networking site that uses real money but, as of right now and in my opinion, it requires technical users who understand and are passionate about this particular subject, Bitcoin, enough to discuss it and use it.
To your original question:
Why build SN at all?
SN is a place where, in my opinion, people who are passionate about Bitcoin can talk about Bitcoin, using Bitcoin. My hope for SN is that it provides a HN style of discussion for Bitcoin (and maybe cryptocurrency in general). HN is actively hostile to cryptocurrency/Bitcion discussions. Reddit degrades into memes of Wolf of Wall Street, Anime references and superficial discussions about price and "HODL"ing. That stuff is great and I enjoy it but I also want a community that is better than 4chan once removed.
I would like to see communities that use the microtransactions idea but, in my opinion, buying into the community, using Lightning wallets etc. is still has too much friction. The only community that is invested enough to overcome this friction is one that specifically focuses on Bitcoin.
Without being something specific to a certain community, one runs the risk of being everything to no community. From what I can tell, SN has some momentum in terms of community and investment. The elevator pitch is basically "A community of people who are passionate about Bitcoin that can talk about Bitcoin, using Bitcoin".
I'm pretty much a bystander, so I encourage @k00b (or you?) to experiment with whatever you think will work but I'm trying to point out that there is a vacuum that SN is filling ("HN but for Bitcoin"). Trying to shoe-horn it into a more general Reddit style community could result in a dilution of attention because sites like Reddit, HN etc. exist and, in my opinion, do the general purpose news aggregation better, most likely due to their large user base. My opinion is that focusing on the user base that differentiates SN from everyone else will be more fruitful. One can always branch out later when there is a more established user base, but for right now, the user base that seems best served is one that is moderately technical and focused on Bitcoin.
In terms of moderation, I want to list a few of my assumptions:
- Microtransactions have the potential to drastically curtail spam and other bad behavior. Perhaps unironically, Bitcoin used the proof-of-work idea that was originally proposed to curtail spam. Now it's come full circle and we have the possibility of using money-as-proxy-for-energy to limit spam.
- Microtransactions allow for economic incentives to post quality content and be rewarded monetarily for it
- Cost of posting allows for the possibility of dissuading shit-posting and other low quality content/comments
- Monetary rewards open the possibility of a more sustainable community. One way to allow for this is to reward operators or moderators who traditionally would work for free and get burned out. Now there's financial remuneration involved, directed at people who could make the community better.
Any "governance" I'm proposing is under the above framework. For example, I've heard that Facebook moderators have to wade through the dregs of content. Microtransactions allow for a two-fold response, reducing the amount of bad content that is available for them to moderate while giving them monetary incentives to keep moderating.
Any moderator role I'm proposing is under the assumption that algorithms or the "market" is doing the "heavy lifting" of filtering bad content. For example, a "flag" option could be available to indicate a post or comment should be looked at by a moderator (potentially putting a bounty on the content so that moderators receive the staked flag amount? Provide some other facility to avoid a moral hazard?).
My concern is that without some guidelines and people to enforce those guidelines, even if it's very gentle or low frequency, has the potential to steer the community in a bad direction.
Without explicit governance, a sort of impromptu government gets setup and is one that is not necessarily in line with the ideals of the people maintaining it. I would rather be explicit about it, even if it needs to change later. There's a question of voting and making it more democratic but at the very least I think there needs to be some guidelines and minimal ways of enforcing them.
reply